SLV Constructions Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Andhra Pradesh HC held that rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 stipulates that service of notice or orders, without signature, would not amount to service at all. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment.
Facts- The petitioner was served with the impugned summary order, in Form DRC-07, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 for the financial year April, 2021 to March, 2022. The summary order in Form DRC-07 has been challenged by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. The impugned summary order, in Form GST DRC-07, is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceedings do not contain the signature of the assessing officer.
Conclusion- Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 stipulates that service of notice or orders, without signature, would not amount to service at all. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in T.V.L. Deepa Traders vs. The Deputy Commissioner had held the same view. Consequently, there is no service of the impugned order even as of today, on account of the absence of signature on the impugned proceeding. In those circumstances, the delay in approaching this Court, would not a relevant factor.
